Challenge to California's School Transgender Law Fails to Make Ballot

Too many signatures thrown out to force a vote

Transgender California school students will still be able to use the restrooms and join the sports teams for whichever gender feels right for them. An effort by social conservatives to force a law passed by the state legislature last year onto the ballot has failed. Opponents of the law gathered enough signatures, but more than 100,000 ended up tossed out as invalid.

"A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil's records."

In November, I wrote critically about efforts to kill the rule, arguing that there's no sign that fears that boys will pretend to be transgender to harass and stalk girls in the bathrooms is based on anything that has happened in the real world. Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle points out that school districts in Los Angeles and San Francisco have already been operating under such guidelines. Given the size of those school districts, no doubt abuse of the system would have come out now were students inclined to do so.

Some commenters were a bit surprised at my stance in November, so let me explain that while I have a lot of personal experience with transgender people, my support for letting transgender teens and their families make these choices is based on what I believe are libertarian foundations. First of all, if I were to make a list of people who have the authority to define a person's gender, it would start with the person involved and would not include any government officials. Classification of people's sex organs fails to qualify for the list of things for which we need government. While birth certificates are valuable tools, they are not sacred objects brought down from on high like Moses bringing lugging down the Ten Commandments. There is a certain component to transgender skepticism that reads a lot like an appeal to authority.

Second, the state uses force or the threat of force to compel students to attend school. As long as the state is going to continue to do so, it can bloody well accommodate any noncriminal, nondisruptive behavior by the students it is forcing to attend. As I said back in November, school choice provides much better solutions. California is becoming a fairly accepting state for charter schools (more than 1,000 as of 2013). Perhaps there will eventually be a market for schools designed to serve families with children working out their gender identity and allies. But until that point, if the state is going to force transgender students to spend the majority of their time under their thumb, they can damn well use whatever bathroom they want.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Problem in the athletic area might be that while you feel like a girl, you are still actually a male, with male physical make up and will be competing at a different level than the actual females. Not likely to be a huge issue in raw numbers of occurrences, but still.

How detached from reality must one be to suggest that presumably straight teenaged males in the extremely homophobic environment that is your average high school would reenact the pilot of Bosom Buddies for the opportunity to “to harass and stalk girls in the bathrooms”?

I can’t even follow the twisted mental association of ideas that would lead one to this conclusion. It’s the psychological equivalent of attempting to decode the Voynich manuscript.

How detached from reality must one be to suggest that presumably straight teenaged males in the extremely homophobic environment that is your average high school would reenact the pilot of Bosom Buddies for the opportunity to “to harass and stalk girls in the bathrooms”?

But given the facts–that I dress the same, get treated the same, am even called ‘he’ still if that’s what I want–but I get to shower with naked girls? where’s the downside?

I will grant you that there are males who are not secure enough in their own sexuality to say yes to this, but it doesn’t take a whole lot–consider that this was a law passed over an entire state to make the one or two trans kids per school feel good.

If their goal was to really just make things more comfortable for transgender kids, they would have unisex bathrooms. But that’s not enough. They need school-wide approval for the child’s feelings and they want to undermine the values of conservative parents.

The school had been allowing the student in question to use faculty facilities, that was unacceptable to the parents. The only acceptable solution was to impose the presence of a physical boy on the girls in their most private areas.

Eventually society will crumble under the weight of all the special interest groups. On the bright side, as the groups get smaller and more specialized more people might start thinking of people as individuals instead of whatever group that person might belong to.

I am thinking letting boys go into the girls’ showers and bathroom counts as disruptive behavior. I shouldn’t be surprised that Reason thinks this is a great idea but somehow I still am.

I get it that forcing people to go to public schools and not having a voucher system is real problem. And I suppose you could look at this thing as a good thing because it might make the point to everyone the absurdity of public schools. Beyond its subversive value, however, I fail to see how this is a good thing. If you are so screwed in the head that you can’t stand going to a public bathroom with people of your own sex, you have problems that go beyond what public school can solve and should probably be home schooled. The other people in the school have interests too. How is it in any way fair or just to totally fuck them and make a bunch of school kids have to shower or go to the bathroom with people they at least consider to be of the opposite sex? I guess it is their duty to take it up the ass so various people whose kids don’t go to the school and never will can feel good about themselves.

Sure. Maybe we should just pretend that kids are totally okay with showering with the opposite sex. What the fuck, maybe we should throw the male and female teachers in the shower with them.

How about this? How about we live in fucking reality and realize that for whatever reason 90% of the people in the world would not want such a system and therefore the public schools should heed those people’s interests.

Have Libertarians really gone down the road of liberal stupidity to such a degree that their position is now that schools kids should all be forced to shower and shit with the opposite sex?

The most sensible option would be to have a third unisex, single occupant, restroom near each set of girl/boy restrooms. But that doesn’t get the desired political effect of making socons shake in their boots.

Apparently that’s a moot point now that it won’t be going to the voters. I understand that legislative districts are drawn in the Democrats’ favor, so the only way to punish the legislators who voted for this law is for a fellow-Democrat to primary them. I’m not sure how much of a threat that is.

You’ve heard of Thai ladyboys, right? And as jesse mentions down thread, the hirja of India is a similar cultural concept which perhaps migrated into S.E. Asia with the introduction of Hinduism and Buddhism. The 3rd sex has been around in Thailand so long that it’s barely worth a raised eyebrow. All of the schools I worked at over their had separate accommodations for them. Likewise, Thailand recently passed a law that allows one to change their sex classification on their national id card.

How long before we have people claiming to be of other species and demanding their employer and the government accommodate them? I am a wolf Shackelford. How dare the school not let me pee on a post outside the door?

How long before we have people claiming to be of other species and demanding their employer and the government accommodate them? I am a wolf Shackelford. How dare the school not let me pee on a post outside the door?

HA HA HA! John, I bet you thought you were coming up with some absurd example that hasn’t happened yet! John, I introduce to you the Otherkin: Fuck you, I’m a dragon.

I don’t understand–you seemed to be defending this law–are you now making fun of it?

Or are ‘otherkin’ some how worthy of mockery for believing the body they’re in doesn’t match who or what they really really know themselves to be while those who believe their gender doesn’t match who or what they really really know themselves to be are not?

What is the functional difference between looking at ones genitals and seeing, feeling some other arrangement and looking at ones ears and seeing points? or looking at ones skin and seeing fur?

First of all, if I were to make a list of people who have the authority to define a person’s gender, it would start with the person involved and would not include any government officials. Classification of people’s sex organs fails to qualify for the list of things for which we need government

Sex organs are also not in the list of items which are to be defined by an individual’s subjective experience. My penis does not become an AR-15 or the Emperor Napoleon’s imperial scepter just because I say it is. Likewise, a person’s sex doesn’t transform just because that person wishes or even truly believes it to be something other than what it is. That’s not a reason to be nasty to that person, but it’s also not a reason to give such individuals benefits above and beyond that of a similarly-situated person who identifies with their sex.

So the q then becomes: should we have as policy that teenage boys (however they relate to their equipment) be allowed access to the ladies’ room at school as a right — a place where the ladies there are at their most vulnerable and often not in a position where help from assault is easily available? If you have any knowledge at all about your average teenage population, the answer is a no-brainer and should inform this issue.

Sex organs are also not in the list of items which are to be defined by an individual’s subjective experience. My penis does not become an AR-15 or the Emperor Napoleon’s imperial scepter just because I say it is.

Well, I always thought of *mine* as an imperial scepter. Sorry to hear about yours.

I maintain you need to use whatever restroom/locker room is appropriate for your genitalia.

Unisex restrooms are fine in most situations, but when you’re going to be undressing with other people you shouldn’t have their feelings disregarded because you are in an emotionally vulnerable minority.

Y’know, one day libertarians will be a dominant political force and we will be the better for it — but it won’t be so long as these fringe issues are what libertarians choose to talk about and identify their movement with. The Neoconfederate bullcrap of the Ron Paul newsletters doomed him to fringe status; is this really a hill worth dying on?

Libertarians would benefit from a taxonomy of beliefs, where this and other less obvious issues from a NAP standpoint can be considered without being put forth with the same urgency that libertarians accord obvious freedom issues, like ending the drug war or economic liberty.

The culture war is real, and it’s best to pick the side that wins, so long as you can leverage that into a libertarian outcome. My problem isn’t the fact that Reason engages it, or even the side they pick, my problem is they don’t do enough to take that and nudge people toward the libertarian outcome…in this case something like “Look how obviously this would work itself out for the satisfaction of everybody if we had school choice”.

The fact that a biological male might believe that their gender is female says nothing about their sexual orientation. They could be a trans lesbian and happy to shower with the bodies that they are attracted to.

The real issue is that straight boys and lesbians should shower together, straight girls with gay boys, and the bi-kids can be in one big squirmy pile.

I managed to share a locker room with a bunch of straight guys without incident through highschool.

By the time I got to college there was something of a bathroom anarchy where some of the guys preferred the girls’ showers because the stalls were bigger and some of the women preferred the men’s because other women took too long.

With issues like this, I’m always reminded of the fact that this is the whole point of public school. It’s pointless to fight one small part of an institution devoted to control and propaganda. That’s why my kids will be homeschooled.

And of course this will eventually have to be expanded to cover adults with gender issues since sheltering the trans kids as kids isn’t preparing them for a world that otherwise is indifferent to their gender identity preferences.

And why is it fair to make laws to protect the feelings of trans students but not adults? After all, plenty of adults might have had latent gender issues that they only recently discovered. So why they should they have to suffer the microaggression of using sex-assigned restrooms?

I demand social justice and that we force all restrooms in California, public and private, to accommodate our trans allies. Vote for me because I’m tolerant and progressive like that.

See, this is why the one-size-fit-all solution of government school doesn’t work, whether it is Christmas plays, school lunches, zero-tolerance, common-core, etc, etc, etc. You will always piss off people that hold different values than the top-men running this disaster. Privitize it all – move to Tax Credits.

That’s true. However, with current instructional technology, I can imagine starting a charter with a student body of 25. If I were at a different place in my life and career, I’d be drawing up a proposal for Harvey Milk Memorial Charter School right now. With homophobic bullying stories being trendy for media coverage, I’d make money hand over fist.

Can one have a gender preference before late puberty? How can one be sexually attracted to the opposite/same sex if one is incapable of being sexually attracted? It seems to me that before a certain point one’s attraction is cultural, afterward it is sexual.

playa: no idea. It’s possible, but most of the pressure against me coming out came from my family not my peers. My mother explicitly told me not to tell my peers because of the shame my sister would experience for having a gay brother.

Brandybuck: I remember being fascinated by guys when I was younger, but not in a sexual sense. It became apparent something was different as I hit 5th grade/middle school, but I wasn’t able to work through what it was and put a name on it until about 9th grade. I imagine with less stigma and a definition of “gay” that isn’t “uncool/bad” I imagine it wouldn’t be that hard to be out in middle school.

Ah, I see. And that’s a good point. However, is it functionally different than the important decision to follow a liberal arts track as opposed to a business/voc-tech track, fine arts track, or STEM track? You can find charters specializing in all four, which could also greatly influence where you pursue higher education and what you study.

In November, I wrote critically about efforts to kill the rule, arguing that there’s no sign that fears that boys will pretend to be transgender to harass and stalk girls in the bathrooms is based on anything that has happened in the real world.

Anecdotes are anecdotes, but…

A former neighbor’s daughter claims to have been harrassed by a transgender boy who identified as a female. Apparently he (I realize that transgenders prefer to be called by the gender they identify as, but I’m still going to use “he” to make it easier for readers to keep track of which kid I’m refering to) tried to feel her up in the girls bathroom. She responded by punching him in the face (she had asked my wife and I to teach her some self defense because of a different bully at school and her mom’s abusive boyfriend at the time).

He then lied to the principal and claimed she punched him because she was bigoted against trannies, so she got expelled and had to switch schools when the administration decided to take his version of events at face value.

Like I said, anecdotes are anecdotes, take with a grain of salt, etc. It’s possible she was the one lieing, but I’m not sure why she would have made it up. Especially to a disinterested 3rd party such as a neighbor.

Yeah, I’m not sure why some people so blithely dimiss the idea of a straight teenaged boy claiming to be a transgender just to get access to the women’s restrooms, showers, etc. There’s bound to be at least a few who would be perverted and devious enough to at least try it.

Especially since the kids these days are so much more tolerant than they were in the bad old days. When I was in high school back in the mid-nineties I think we were starting to become more accepting of homosexuals, but actual transgender people were still looked at as totally strange and fucked up. The verbal and probably physical abuse wouldn’t make up for the opportunity to see a few boobies, but that’s not the case now.

I’m still mixed on this issue. I am unable to separate sex from gender. People can change their sex of course, and a few people have indeterminate sex, but your gender ultimately derives from your sex. If you are a male then you are a male. If you are a female then you are a female. If you are hermaphrodite then you are the exception.

Donald McCloskey was a male. Diedre McCloskey is a female. Notice what happened in between. Donald changed his sex and became Diedre.

When I heard about the incident I actually felt a little warm and fuzzy inside. Not because someone I taught self defense to had punched a trannie in the face, but the fact that she was willing to stand up for herself.

First of all, if I were to make a list of people who have the authority to define a person’s gender, it would start with the person involved and would not include any government officials.

Apparently there is, among the bien-pensants, a difference between “sex” and “gender”: the former is purely biological, while the latter is something having to do with ” range of physical, biological, mental and behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity.” So, given that that’s what the transgender are insisting, why don’t we just correct them and say, “You appear to be operating under the misconception that we have separate bathrooms for the different genders. This is not true. We don’t give a rat’s ass about whether you are “masculine” or “feminine” when we decide which bathroom you should use. We only care whether you are male or female, because our bathrooms are separated on the basis, not of “gender,” but of sex. And we define your sex, not by your subjective feelings, but by what anybody looking at your genitals (or, in extraordinary cases, your chromosomes) can determine objectively. So STFU and go to the boy’s/girl’s bathroom where you belong”?

We only care whether you are male or female, because our bathrooms are separated on the basis, not of “gender,” but of sex. And we define your sex, not by your subjective feelings, but by what anybody looking at your genitals (or, in extraordinary cases, your chromosomes) can determine objectively.

Nicely put, Seamus. To put it another way:

“You can use the girl’s bathroom after you’ve cut your dick off, not before.”

“Classification of people’s sex organs fails to qualify for the list of things for which we need government.”

That is one of the most disingenuous sentences I have seen put to print. What someone’s sex organs classify as does not have multiple options (barring genetic disorders), and a government run facility has to set policy based on that otherwise they run the risk of setting up a hostile environment under sexual harassment laws. Particularly since most people suffering from this are heterosexual in their genotype sex.

The case that this was responding to was one in which the school tried to make a reasonable accommodation but the student’s family insisted that not only must their physical boy not have to use the boys room, he must use the girl’s room. Why is that a must?

Transgender California school students will still be able to use the restrooms and join the sports teams for whichever gender feels right for them.

And surreptitiously enter the locker rooms for whichever gender feels right for them. Maybe take a few videos…

In November, I wrote critically about efforts to kill the rule, arguing that there’s no sign that fears that boys will pretend to be transgender to harass and stalk girls in the bathrooms is based on anything that has happened in the real world.

Because people simply do not act upon what seems like a great idea once the legally-sanctioned door is opened.

Got it.

Also, how can there be documented experiences of transgender boys harassing girls in bathrooms if they weren’t allowed to enter those bathrooms in the first place? Sounds like a chicken-egg argument that is on the losing side.

It’s all paralleling the resistance to same-sex marriage. Using a simplified and incomplete idea of ‘biology’ to justify societal absolutes. Joking about being a dog or a wolf akin to hysteria about a slippery slope toward sex with ducks. Paranoia that the rights of the vast majority will be destroyed by recognizing the rights of a minority.

Kudos to Scott Shackford for not making me feel completely ashamed of being a libertarian today.